Obsessions
November 10, 2009 13 Comments
My exchanges with “healthcare” advocates make it clear that their priorities are in fact rather strange.
Let’s say they give sob stories about people who need health care to save their life, but can’t afford it, therefore will be left to die. I point out EMTALA. They say “but that only covers ER care, it doesn’t cover routine things!” Um, huh? I thought this was about life-saving treatment, not acne medication.
Let’s say they start prattling on about how all other ‘developed’ countries have ‘universal’ health care (=government health care that covers everyone), but since we don’t, poor people fall through the cracks. I point out Medicare. They say: “but that only covers poor people, not everyone!” Um, huh? I thought the concern was precisely whether poor people are covered. The rich and middle class already have health care through their jobs, or privately.
It seems the real priority is that there be an All-Encompassing Government Program that Covers Everything. You get it? The concern is not life-saving nor is the concern poor people. The concern is that an All-Encompassing Government Program needs to exist. As long as it doesn’t exist, the left will consider it a tragedy, and agitate for one.
Why? Why is that a priority? Obviously, they don’t know.
So I’m trying to dig deeper. What psychological pathology makes people so in love with the concept of health care being delivered via an All-Encompassing Government Program? What’s so special about getting your health care from the Government that the left instinctively considers it a goal in itself worth striving for endlessly, for everyone (not just poor people)? The more I think about it the more bizarre it is.
Perhaps I can help clarify things for you.
1) We don’t just want health care to save people’s lives in emergencies. As you point out, we seem to already have that. What we want is routine care, screening, immunization, physician health counseling, monitoring of chronic conditions, medications to keep those conditions in check. You know–everything involved in the word “health care” that isn’t emergency care. This kind of care is necessary to keep people healthy, keep chronic conditions in check, and illnesses and diseases from becoming worse. It’s estimated that thousands of Americans die every year because they do not have this kind of care. Even though they have emergency care. Get it?
2) Lots of countries have universal coverage but not “government health care,” or even “government health insurance.” The United Kingdom has government health care. Canada has government insurance. Sweden has neither. But it still has universal coverage for its citizens. I imagine our system will look much like that in a decade. Regulated private insurance for most of us, public insurance for some, subsidies for all who can’t afford either. And it’s not just poor people who don’t have insurance in America. Many middle-income people cannot afford to buy insurance on the individual market, or are simply uninsurable because of preexisting conditions.
I won’t consider it a tragedy if we do not have an “all encompassing” government health care system. I’ll be fine with a hybrid system such as we already have–public and private insurance–as long as a) everyone has comprehensive coverage of some sort and b) we find a way to bring down costs.
I hope you can see clearly that you are wrong when you say people like myself see government health care as a “goal in itself.” It’s not even a goal at all. It is one means of getting to the goals–universal coverage and cost controls–but it is one means among several we can use to achieve them.
Clearer?
Which people do you think don’t or can’t get routine care? People can, and do, in various ways, whether through a health plan from their employer, making use of cheap local clinics, or Medicaid and analogous state programs for the indigent. Or even (GASP!) paying for the health care they want/need with (GASP!) money.
You “imagine” that in “a decade” our system will look like this: “[r]egulated private insurance for most of us, public insurance for some, subsidies for all who can’t afford either.” But rejoice! Our system looks like exactly that now. That is a perfectly accurate description of our current ‘system’. You should be perfectly content then.
You say your main goals are to get everyone “comprehensive coverage” and to “bring down costs”. This begs the question of what “coverage” means (what things need to be “covered” to count as “coverage”? Why isn’t Medicaid + private insurance enough?). It’s also self-contradictory. Having the government “cover” everyone is not a method of bringing down costs. It is a method of doing the opposite.
So as you see, I don’t agree or accept that your stated goals will or even can be achieved by the means you favor – in particular, the House bill, which you haven’t read – but also by a government health care system in general. That is why the obsession remains a mystery to me. best
Our system looks like exactly that now.
It sure does. The only difference is that private insurance will be more regulated, doing away with preexisting condition exclusions and rescinding your policy when you’re ill. Also, there will be additional public insurance for those who do not qualify for existing programs and who can’t buy in through their employer. So, yeah. it’s just like we have now in principle, only more so. Tweaked. Not so radical, is it? It’s not a “government takeover.” It’s just like what we have now only it gets more people covered and attempts to lower costs.
]Why isn’t Medicaid + private insurance enough?
Because millions still do not have insurance, ipso facto.
And, yes, covering everyone is a method to bring down costs. It’s spreads the risk wider, and to some healthy populations who won’t cost a lot. (Like young college graduates.)
You seem mystified as to how a government-run health insurance system could cost less or be more efficient. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the fact that they have far less overhead costs than private insurance does. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the fact that Medicare has done a heck of a lot better job at controlling its costs than the private sector has. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the fact that every single nation on earth who has single-payer, government-run health insurance pays less per capita and as a percent of GDP for health care than we do. And it’s not even a close thing. They pay like half what we pay. With no worse health outcome results. These are facts. You should acquaint yourself with them. Then you won’t be so baffled.
So, yeah. it’s just like we have now in principle, only more so. Tweaked. Not so radical, is it?
I guess you know this because you’ve read the bill and that’s your analysis of it. Right? Otherwise how could you know this?
Where we are is: you’ve acknowledged that our current system basically satisfies the criteria you say you want for the future. Why then is any bill of any kind needed?
Because millions still do not have insurance, ipso facto.
Even if that’s true, so? I thought this was about health care, not “insurance”. Health care and insurance are not the same thing. I know that is a very complicated, confusing concept for some people so see my highly detailed lengthy post on how health insurance and health care are not the same thing for more on that.
And, yes, covering everyone is a method to bring down costs. It’s spreads the risk wider, and to some healthy populations who won’t cost a lot. (Like young college graduates.)
“Covering everyone” doesn’t “spread” any risk. People who say this are misusing the concept of risk and do not know what they are talking about. See my post on what risk is not.
What it will spread are costs. In other words, certain groups of people pay the health care costs of other groups of people. (In particular, my paycheck will be garnished (even further) to pay for the health care of other people, taking money and opportunities away from my children.)
And you acknowledge as much above. You’re essentially saying (as if this is a good and grand thing) that healthy/young populations will be forced to pay for health care of other people. Whatever that is, it is not “risk-spreading”.
You seem mystified as to how a government-run health insurance system could cost less or be more efficient.
I’m not “mystified”. I emphatically do not believe it to be the case.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the fact that they have far less overhead costs than private insurance does.
Who’s “they”?
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the fact that every single nation on earth who has single-payer, government-run health insurance pays less per capita and as a percent of GDP for health care than we do.
Whatever the outcomes if this experiment goes through, “paying less per capita” will not be among them.
You know, it seems to me that food is even more fundamental to the health of human beings than health care. So, why are we not promoting a Universal Foodcare System?
A point I’ve made many times – food is the most basic form of health care. Then shelter. Indeed, if the arguments for universal health care were valid, they would be arguments for Socialized-Pretty-Much-Everything.
Universal health care supporters probably do believe in S-P-M-E deep down, but just know they can’t admit it for the sake of marginalizing themselves.
You know what though, most of the people spouting support for ‘universal health care’ are so far beyond the stage where seeing food as health care makes sense it’s not even funny. These are (for the most part) coddled, spoiled, fat people who probably spend 10x as much as they need to on chi-chi designer food, but just want a way for others to defray the cost of their Prozac.
As far as I know, malnutrition isn’t a big problem here. Seems to me that the existing system is working well there. Food is cheap and plentiful. Where’s the problem?
With regard to your SPME argument, please consult the slippery slope fallacy.
And if you think I’m coddled, spoiled and fat–fuck you. I think most people who are against universal health insurance are bitter, angry, monsters who don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.
If you don’t think that’s a valid way to argue, then think twice before doing it yourself.
food is cheap due to government subsidies. and the artificially cheap food (corn/soy/wheat) is directly responsible for most of the illnesses that require ‘health care’. they are not bad foods in themselves, but when they are the bulk of the diet, as is the case for americans, they cause massive health problems, including extreme obesity.
the fact that so many people who want universal health insurance in america (and yeah, it never is ‘care’, just insurance, gotta have that third party payer!) do not have any accurate or honest information about the american food supply just proves the OP more correct.
universal food care would mean acknowledging that what you eat explicitly contributes to how often you get sick, whether you develop certain chronic illnesses and yes, how long you might live.
the reality is that america needs less government intervention (such as the subsidies that cheapen the food making us all pretty sick) and then people could sign up for cheap catastrophic policies and pay for the occasional routine stuff out of pocket.
universal health care advocates never like to admit that 80 year old americans did not visit the doctor for routine care for most of their lives (since they would have been depression-era children) and yet their life expectancies are quite the same as any european 80 year old (who also was not that likely to run to the doctor for ‘routine’ care).
there is a cargo cult of hypochondria in the notion that seeing the doctor all the time keeps you healthy. it does not make sense, but it is a recurring talking point. everyone i have ever known who was a regular at the doc’s was hypochrondriac, neurotic, or pretty sick, never ‘healthy’.
As far as I know, malnutrition isn’t a big problem here. Seems to me that the existing system is working well there. Food is cheap and plentiful. Where’s the problem?
I didn’t say there was a problem with food. What I said was that if universal-healthcare arguments were valid they would apply to food. I agree there’s not a problem with food. And nor do I think there’s a problem with “healthcare”, at least not a problem that can be fixed by socializing it yet more.
With regard to your SPME argument, please consult the slippery slope fallacy.
Slippery-slope is only a ‘fallacy’ if and when the slope doesn’t continue forever. I am interested in precisely when/where the arguments put forth for things like universal health care end (if indeed they do). I see no evidence that they do.
And if you think I’m coddled, spoiled and fat–fuck you.
What this all boils down to is that you and like-minded are trying to take money out of my pocket to pay for your stuff, and then pat yourselves on the back for how “caring” you are.
Your saving grace is that you are honest about it because you just said “fuck you” directly (instead of indirectly – I consider people who argue that others should be stolen from to pay for them to be basically saying “fuck you” to me but in a cowardly way). So yeah: fuck you too. Pay for your own fucking stuff. Pay for your own fucking self. Are you a man? Act like one. “Waah other people should pay for me”. Baby. You are a baby child. Grow the fuck up.
I think most people who are against universal health insurance are bitter, angry, monsters who don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.
And then there it is, I “don’t give a shit about anyone but myself” if I don’t want to let a fucking pussy prick like yourself pick my pocket.
Get off your fucking high horse. You are arguing on your internet-connected computer that you, poor you, poor internet-connected photography-hobbied big-man-swearing-in-everyones’-blog-comments-sections you, are so deprived that you need to pick my pocket and that of my children, taking opportunities away from my children, and if I don’t like it, I “only care about myself”.
This is precisely what I mean by spoiled and coddled. Such a sense of entitlement.
Go the fuck away and don’t come back pussy.
SC,
You and I think alike on this issue.
You might enjoy this:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/11/nationalized-health-care-and.html
I did.
I think this all may hit upon why ‘healthcare’ as an issue bothers me so much. It’s pussy-SQUARED.
Think about it. Wealth-redistribution is a pussy move. People who can’t support themselves and want to leech off others – pussies.
But more than that, ‘healthcare’ is a pussy concern. It really is. It is not a man’s concern. Men don’t walk around rubbing their hands about ‘healthcare’ all the time. Men don’t even go to doctors that much. To the point of neglecting their health, even. Women go far more often. It’s fairly womanly to have ‘healthcare’ as a top priority in one’s life. I’m not saying this like it’s a good or bad thing, it just is. It’s a womanish concern.
So, people who want wealth-redistribution in the area of ‘healthcare’ are being double-pussies. Or pussies-squared. I’m not sure how the algebra plays out but I am sure that I find the whole issue tremendously self-centered, coddled, inward-looking, insular, and nauseating.
JFK wanted to go to the Moon. This is what interested him. And then he got murdered, and then we did. Whatever else one thinks of JFK, that aspect of him was anti-pussy. That was a large, manly dream. Outward-looking, forward-thinking, bold.
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi want to write petty buttinsky bureaucratic 9000-page documents specifying when and where people can go put their legs into stirrups/turn their heads and cough. This is genuinely what interests them. That’s how petty and small and sad their dreams are.
Pussies. Squared.
Another post, by the great M. Simon, on this same subject:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/talking-to-lefty.html
Pingback: Pussy-Squared « Rhymes With Cars & Girls